2. misc-audio
  3. 162085-72364

Plus and Minus

Got into a discussion with a few fellow musician audiophiles.  

Issue one:  The fidelity of home playback versus live music.  After much bantering about, it became, 'How can you tell?"  If you didn't hear it live or you don't listen to live music, how can you say your playback system is true to live?  Interesting question.  I put forward, if your monkey bone tells you it is live - then it is live.  After all, who's to say what you hear and what someone else hears is true to live or not.  If you like it - its live to you.

Second issue:  How can you tell if a tweak is positive or negative?  If put it in, did it bring you closer? When you take it out, did it make it worse?  I put forward the notion that if you put it in and listen to it for a bit and then take it out, the question becomes did it take you there or take you away?  After all, you listened to your system without it and you know how it sounded; putting something in changes it (presumably) and only after taking it out can you judge if you really like it or not or are you enamored with it.  On this, there was general agreement.

Lastly, does 'how much you paid' factor into the equation?  That was universally shot down.  There are incredible audio values in a specific piece that belay its cost.  You just gotta hunt them down.  There was agreement that there was a law of diminishing returns.  I put forth the notion that the chase for the best knows no boundary save the wallet.  The smiles and nods were universal on this point.  The law being:  If you can afford it ....

Funny hobby we have.  The monkey bone should guide us and the wallet supporting us; yet, we argue about what each other hears and neither side has the same bone n' wallet.  :-)
128x128keesue
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,805 posts
 
To hear it live would have to be done in an acoustic manner. Any amplification or engineering of the music while playing isn't live, except in the sense that it's being done right in front of you. So your friends can't really argue that you don't know what it sounds like unless you were there, unless that live (doctored) performance is the standard against which things are being measured. 

As for tweaks, I experiment before settling on what I feel sounds best. I've even gone back, after some time, to see if I hear anything differently, only to find out it was a waste of time to do so, since I heard it right in the first instance. 

Our ears are very refined so when that sound hits my monkey bone, gives me the warm and fuzzies, blows my skirt up, or makes me forget my troubles, that is when I know it sounds right, because it's so convincing as to suspend disbelief and I relax and enjoy for no other reason than that.

As for costs, it's all personal and rather selfish, in my case. I have my priorities and sometimes better music wins out, allowing me to indulge, within my limits.

All the best,
Nonoise
jdane
183 posts
 
I have no idea what you mean by "if you like it, it's live to you."  That completely undermines your original distinction between live and recorded--that's the question at issue.  (There are plenty of recordings I prefer to what I've heard live.  That doesn't make them less engineered).  Also "live" music is not stable.  It depends on the nature of the hall, how close you are, and where you sit.  So to say that a recording should 'reproduce' this sound can only mean 'reproduce' the sound at a particular point in a 3-dimensional hall.  Even then, I can't imagine any reliable way to test this.
keesue's avatar
keesue OP
42 posts
 
1. "I have no idea what you mean by "if you like it, it's live to you." That completely undermines your original distinction between live and recorded--that's the question at issue".

2. "Our ears are very refined so when that sound hits my monkey bone, gives me the warm and fuzzies, blows my skirt up, or makes me forget my troubles, that is when I know it sounds right, because it's so convincing as to suspend disbelief and I relax and enjoy for no other reason than that".  

3. "Monkey bone?" 

1.  The start of the discussion.
2.  The end of the discussion.. 
3.  The no clue.

No need to respond more.  It kinda says it all, eh?  :-)







jdane
183 posts
 
OK.  I thought we were talking about the difference between live and recorded sound (which is the topic you defined).  But  we were actually talking about whether we like shih-tzus better than bulldogs, or whether we are more moved by weather balloons or quadratic equations.   
oldhvymec
5,101 posts
 
He's a musician, pay attention... Audiofilers should listen.. # 2 is one of the best way to see if things got the mojo going on.. plain and simple..

Not install, oh wow it changed the world, BUT.. that warm and fuzzy, makes you forget the tweak.. I get what he's saying..

#3 is easy for me to understand, because of my best friend. YUP in Sheldon,Washington. Hech of a musician. You'd swear he has a 1% patch somewhere. A true gentleman, though.

He has got the Martin bug BAD.. Gosh he can play those things... MERCY...Pick up a sax at one time and just tear it up.. (wind issue now), keyboards. Sing like an angle, and play WELL at the same time.. I'm telling you he could have given Page or Clapton a run for their money... Jimmy NO...

He's really into playback now laying down track, his time is short. He want's his stuff recorded..He did it himself.. He's changed his tune a little when it comes to the audiophile world. He understands. THEY will argue with the guy that make the music... No idea how to make it but love to listen and argue, why an amp don't match well with speakers, or a cable change, will open up a pair of speakers.. They usually scratch their head and walk away, and then take the cotton out of their ears, and say.
What's that mate?

What's that mate.. LOL

Regards
More to discover